@andorski said:
@vackillers: Isn't the question not "Do games use hyper threading" but "Do games benefit hyperthreading"? My limited understanding is that hyper threading doesn't emulate cores, but instead is a system that reduces the time a CPU core is idle. The issue with games is that they do not receive any tangible benefit from increased efficiency in serial individual core tasks.
Also, check out this article on several games being run on Haswell i5 and i7. They run each game in two separate settings: one at low resolution/low detail and the other at high resolution/high detail. Games running at high settings are dead even on between i5 and i7 in terms of FPS. Meanwhile, i7 gets a small but significant increase with games running on low settings. So it seems like when a game is running on high graphical settings the GPU becomes the bottleneck. This would make the advantage of an i7 CPU irrelevant. Unfortunately the article I link doesn't test strategy games that have to run tons of gameplay calculations. Another test done by Anandtech using Civ V shows no improvement on FPS when the GPU is the bottleneck and a ~5fps when it is not. I'm not a fan of using FPS to judge this game's performance though; measuring the time it takes for the NPC to take its turn is probably a better indication of game performance.
When it comes to games which actually benefit from hyperthreading it really is just down to personal view, when I myself personally see all threads/cpus being used, I find that to be beneficial no matter which way I'm looking at it, if all cores are getting used then im not wasting any performance, thats how I see it... Games are more dependant on GPUS as some guy above mentioned, and it can be definitely wiser to spend less on an i5 over an i7 and spend all the extra cash you miight save towards a better GPU, but a couple things to note here is that he is already going for a GTX 780, which is one of the best graphics cards on the market today, the Ti / Titans aren't really that much better, but they are better, just not by enough to fork out 700-1000$ for... and if he sli'd up, well, thats a shit ton more than what you would save by dumbing down the CPU and the other thing to note, if it wasn't absolutely clear in the original post by the system specs, he is "FUTURE" proofing the system.. and those threads will be crucial when the new gens start to roll out next year. Games still use a lot of the CPU even though they are more dependant on a GPU, but I can tell ya, an i5 is going to bottleneck that GPU he selected but there are plenty of things that will make use of the extra threads and he is doing other stuff other then gaming as well so its better he goes with an i7 anyway.
As for the games using more RAM then people think, its not about something going seriously wrong, games are software, they are coded to use a set amount of memory, games will have a "set max" limit that will be based on how much available RAM is the total system actually has. This goes back to the early days of Adobe Photoshop, where it would use ALL RAM available, no matter how much you have.... So yes you can run any game with 8GB just fine, but if you do actually have more! then games will actually use more! until they've hit the coded max limit.
Need to be clear here: when I stated my RAM usage was over half of my 16GB RAM, that means 8GB RAM for the game, and then some 20% left for whatever Windows 7 will use ontop of what the game uses... The more RAM you have is ALWAYS better, whether you actually need it or not you never want to run out of resources.
Log in to comment